coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Batalha (Portugal).
5.  On 15 March 2006 the applicant lodged an action with the Court of Porto de Mós (domestic proceedings no. 607/06.2TBPMS) seeking the recognition of an easement (servidão de passagem).
6.  On 24 May 2006 and on 27 June 2007 the applicant rectified the initial application upon request of the Court of Porto de Mós.
7.  Between 28 April and 2 May 2006 the defendants lodged their submissions in reply (contestação) and informed the Court of Porto de Mós that one of the defendants had died.
8.  On 9 January 2008 the Court stayed the proceedings, pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings in relation to the deceased defendant.
9.  On 28 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Court for leave to continue the proceedings against the widow of the deceased defendant (incidente de habilitação de herdeiros).
10.  On 30 July 2008 the applicant requested that the proceedings also continued against M. as heir of the deceased.
11.  On 18 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer resigned. A new one was appointed on 10 March 2009.
12.  On 20 March 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós requested the applicant to provide information with regard to the relationship between M. and the deceased defendant.
13.  On 15 July 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós delivered a decision concerning the proceedings of inheritance, stating that the deceased defendant’s widow and M. should replace him in the proceedings.
14.  On 8 November 2011 the Court of Porto de Mós, taking into account its decision of 15 July 2010, resumed the main proceedings.
15.  On 23 October 2012 the applicant’s representative resigned. The applicant appointed a new one on 19 December 2012.
16.  On 7 February 2013 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding. The case was set down for hearing on 7 June 2013. Two more hearings were scheduled for 12 July and 13 September 2013.
17.  On 29 November 2013 the court of first instance partially found in favour of the applicant.
18.  On 28 January 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação).
19.  The proceedings are still pending at second instance.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Izmayil.
5.  On 28 November 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered Mr S. earlier the same day.
6.  On 30 November 2012 the investigating judge of the Reni Local Court of the Odessa Region ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2013.
7.  On 25 January 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 February 2013.
8.  On 26 February 2013 the indictment in the applicant’s case was approved.
9.  On 27 February 2013 the indictment and the criminal case file were forwarded by the prosecutor to the court.
10.  On 28 February 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Head of the Izmail SIZO to release the applicant immediately given that the period of detention ordered by the court had expired on 27 February. By a letter of the same day, the Head of the Izmail SIZO replied to the applicant’s lawyer that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the forwarding of the criminal case file to the trial court it was for that court to decide on the applicant’s continued detention.
11.  The same day the lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the prison authorities to release the applicant. In reply to that letter, the Odessa Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended in January 2013 until 27 February 2013 and that on the latter date the criminal case file against the applicant had been forwarded to the trial court; the prosecutor’s office therefore considered that the applicant’s rights and interests had not been violated.
12.  On 11 March 2013 the lawyer submitted a request to the investigating judge for the applicant’s release. He noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention ordered by the judge had expired on 27 February 2013 and that no decision had been taken on the applicant’s continued detention.
13.  On 14 March 2013 the investigating judge rejected the above request. With reference to Article 331 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the judge noted that on the last date of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, that is, on 27 February 2013, his criminal case had been referred to the trial court, which had two months to decide on his continued detention. The judge concluded that there had been no grounds for the applicant’s release on 28 February 2013.
14.  On 25 March 2013 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 14 March 2013.
15.  On 15 April 2013 the Izmayil Local Court of the Odessa Region held a preliminary hearing in which it ordered the applicant’s continued detention.
16.  On 5 November 2013[1] the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.
6.  On 31 May 1994 the applicant claimed a sum of money from a bank.
7.  On 16 September 2005 the applicant lodged an application before the Court challenging the length of these proceedings. On 22 May 2007 the Court decided to strike that case (application no. 34161/05) out of its list of cases on the ground that a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties.
8.  In the proceedings complained of the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 April 2007 to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, examined as an appeal on points of law, became final on 11 June 2007.
9.  On 27 January 2010 the above decision was quashed by the Constitutional Court and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for re‑examination.
10.  On 23 September 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint challenging the length of the proceedings.
11.  On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. Upon the applicant’s appeal on points of law the cassation chamber of the Supreme Court quashed that decision on 25 April 2013.
12.  On 19 June 2014 the Supreme Court again dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. The applicant indicated that he intended to lodge an appeal on points of law after the service of the Supreme Court’s decision.
4.  The applicant, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov, was a Russian national, who had been born in 1979 and lived in Vyshniy Volochek.
5.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug‑related offences.
6.  During several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, the applicant was detained in the police ward (IVS) of Vyshniy Volochek in the Tver Region. He claimed, in particular, that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.
7.  On 29 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.
8.  By letter submitted on 20 June 2012, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They acknowledged that Mr Gasanov had been “detained in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay him 5,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction.
9.  By letter of 24 August 2012 the applicant’s representative notified the Court of Mr Gasanov’s acceptance of the terms of the Government’s declaration.
10.  In a further letter of 25 September 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that on 5 September 2012 the applicant had died and that Ms V. Pavlova and Ms L. Semyonova, the applicant’s grandmother and aunt respectively, intended to pursue his application before the Court.
11.  On 31 October 2012 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases on account of the applicant’s death.
7.  All the applicants are relatives of Mr I. Cheban, as specified in the Appendix.
8.  On 23 December 2000 I. Cheban was struck by a car when crossing a street in the city of Chernivtsi. Following the accident he died in a hospital.
9.  On 30 December 2000 the Chernivtsi regional police department refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the accident, noting that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T., the driver of the car.
10.  On 16 January 2001 the Chernivtsi city prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 30 December 2000 as unfounded and instituted criminal proceedings for causing death by careless driving.
11.  On 16 March, 23 August, 17 September 2001, 15 May 2002, 11 July and 27 December 2003 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigations on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T.
12.  Following the applicants’ complaints, all those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. When quashing those decisions, the supervising authorities held that the evidentiary basis had been incomplete and that the investigations had not been carried out thoroughly. In particular, on 10 February 2004 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi quashed the decision of 27 December 2003 as unfounded and noted that serious contradictions in the case file had still not been removed, despite numerous orders to the investigators dealing with the case. The court considered that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures and expert examinations.
13.  On 6 April 2005 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigation on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. The police referred to the results of expert examinations suggesting that T. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident; at the same time the materials of the file suggested that I. Cheban had violated the traffic rules.
14.  On 6 January 2006 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi upheld that decision, noting that it was lawful and substantiated.
15.  On 14 March 2006 and 10 April 2007 the Chernivtsi Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
3.  The applicants’ personal details are provided in the appendix below.
4.  On 15 March 1982 the first, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land, together with Mr Mite Ristov, Mr Dinko Ristov. Upon the death of Mr Mite Ristov, the domestic proceedings on his behalf were pursued by his heirs, from the second to fifth applicants. Upon the death of Mr Dinko Ristov the domestic proceedings were pursued on his behalf by his heirs, from the sixth to eighth applicants.
5.  On 21 July 2004, namely before the application was introduced, the ninth applicant had died. With a letter of 3 September 2007 the applicants’ representative informed the Court about the ninth applicant’s death and that the application would be pursued on his behalf by his heir Mr Taško Šterjov (the name of this heir is the same with the name of the third applicant).
6.  On 21 December 2004 the first applicant died and the application was pursued on his behalf by his heirs Mr Taško Mihajlov, Mr Saltir Mihajlovski and Mr Stojan Mihajlov.
7.  The proceedings ended on 7 March 2008 when the legal representative was served with a judgment of the Štip Court of Appeal of 28 January 2008 which listed the following plaintiffs: the heirs of the first applicant (see paragraph 6 above), the second to eighth applicants, the heir of the ninth applicant (see paragraph 5 above) and the tenth to twelfth applicants. The appeal on the points of law lodged against this judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court (отфрла) as ratione valoris.
4.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in the appendix below.
5.  On 16 March 1982 five people (“the predecessors”), the ninth and the twenty-second applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land.
6.  Between 1984 and 2001 the predecessors died. The first, second, third and fourth applicants stepped in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessor. The fifth to eighth and the tenth to twenty-first applicants did not step in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessors.
7.  On 12 May 2004 the ninth applicant died.
8.  On 23 April 2005 the twenty-second applicant died and his heirs, Mr Stojan Kostov and Mr Mite Kostov, applied to continue the application in his name.
9.  On 17 April 2009 the fourth applicant died and her heirs, the second and third applicants, applied to continue the application also in her name.
10.  The impugned proceedings, which were reconsidered on one occasion, ended on 31 August 2007 when the final decision of the Štip Court of Appeal was served on the applicants. This decision listed the following as plaintiffs: the first, second, third, fourth, ninth and twenty-second applicants as well as the predecessors of the remaining applicants.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in St Petersburg before the events of the case.
5.  In 2004 several criminal cases were opened against the applicant on suspicion of kidnapping, extortion and planning an assassination.
6.  By final judgments of 15 March 2007 and 8 October 2009, the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of twenty-three years’ imprisonment.
7.  Starting from 10 March 2004, the date of his arrest, the applicant was detained in various custodial facilities in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, on 15 January 2010 the applicant was transported from a prison hospital to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 18 February 2010. According to the applicant, the facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 456 measuring 8 sq. m accommodated up to three inmates. The applicant further claimed that he had been denied the necessary medical treatment there. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted several photographs of his cell.
8.  On 1 February 2010 Ms Klykova, the applicant’s representative at that time, lodged an application form complaining about the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Attached was a power of attorney, dated 12 January 2010 and signed by the applicant, which read as follows:
“Power of Attorney
[In accordance with] Rule 36 of the Rules of Court
I, Mr Makovoz ... authorise Ms Klykova ... to represent me before the European Court of Human Rights ... in connection with my complaint against the Russian Federation, lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.”
9.  In letter of 19 April 2010, Ms Klykova informed the Court that between 15 January and the end of February 2010 the applicant had been held in the St Petersburg remand prison and described the conditions of his detention there. She also submitted that she had lost contact with the applicant after he had left the prison on an unspecified date in late February 2010.
10.  In letter of 26 October 2012, the applicant further complained about the conditions of his detention in various custodial facilities between 10 March 2004 and 22 December 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lived in Nizhny Novgorod prior to the events of the case.
5.  On 23 September 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery, theft, forgery and extortion.
6.  On 11 April 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.
7.  On 21 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment 11 April 2008 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it also ordered the applicant’s detention to continue for a further three months.
8.  By orders of 17 November 2008 and 16 February and 19 May 2009, the authorised period of the applicant’s detention was extended. These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant’s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention.
9.  On 24 November 2009 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to a six years and one month’s imprisonment.
10.  Between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-52/1 of Nizhniy Novgorod. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived in Bolshaya Kivara in the Republic of Udmurtiya before his arrest.
5.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with murder.
6.  On 18 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya, at final instance, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years and six months’ imprisonment.
7.  During several periods between 13 July 2005 and 19 January 2007, for a total length of sixty-one day, the applicant was held in IVS Votkinsk, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic. According to the applicant and the statements by his three cellmates, the conditions of detention in that facility were as follows. The applicant’s cell, located on the basement floor, was overcrowded: it measured 8 sq. m and accommodated up to five inmates. There were no individual beds, mattresses or bed linen. The detainees were afforded one meal per day. No outdoor exercise was available to them.
8.  On 14 July 2005 the sanitary-epidemiological service inspected the detention facility. In their report, drafted on the same day, they noted that the IVS held sixty-three detainees which was nearly twice its design capacity, that there was no heating and restricted access to daylight. The general sanitary state of the facility was poor. The service recommended to the management of the facility to bring the conditions in line with the legal requirements.
9.  It appears that the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to various authorities. In his reply of 27 November 2006 the local prosecutor acknowledged some of his claims and informed the applicant that he had directed the management of the detention facility to upgrade the conditions.
10.  On 23 October 2007 the Votkinsk Town Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya examined the applicant’s civil action in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. It found that a part of the allegations, in particular those concerning an overcrowding of the facility, a lack of bedding and poor sanitary conditions, were substantiated but rejected the claim.
11.  On 19 June 2006 the applicant lodged his first letter to the Court, complaining about violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against him.
12.  On 17 August 2006 the applicant despatched the completed application form.
13.  In his letter of 3 April 2007 the applicant gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk, alleging that they violated Article 3 of the Convention.
14.  By letter of 23 May 2012, the Registry informed the applicant that his complaint had been more than ten pages long and, referring to the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings, requested him to submit a summary application form listing the complaints which he wished to pursue.
15.  Complying with the above request, on 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged the application form. It contained, in particular, the complaint about the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 17 April 2007 the applicant was questioned as suspect on charges of theft.
7.  On 25 June 2008 the Budapest XIV/XVI District Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for theft.
8.  On 14 October 2011 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant.
9.  The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest High Court on 8 October 2012. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 October 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and, according to the latest information available to the Court, lives in Aksaray.
5.  On 2 April 2011 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since 2008, was taken into custody in the context of an investigation into murder by a person or persons unknown. He was placed in the Yedikule Security Directorate in Istanbul.
6.  On 4 April 2011 the applicant delivered his witness statement before a criminal court in relation to the aforementioned investigation. However, he was not released after delivering the statement; instead he continued to be detained in the Yedikule Security Directorate for having outstayed his visa.
7.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant was transferred to Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”), where he was placed in a custodial cell for the next five days.
8.  On 10 April 2011 the applicant was sent to Kumkapı Removal Centre with a view to being deported. According to the applicant’s account, Kumkapı Removal Centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. He had to share a dormitory measuring approximately 30‑35 sq. m with twenty-four to forty-five other people and the overcrowding of the centre resulted in hygiene problems. The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor. Moreover, there was no provision for outdoor exercise.
9.  On 12 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for refugee status.
10.  On 27 April 2011 he claimed asylum from the Ministry of the Interior.
11.  On 29 April 2011 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of Aksaray as an asylum seeker and he was released from Kumkapı Removal Centre on the same day. It appears that the applicant was subsequently permitted to reside in Konya.
12.  According to the latest information provided to the Court, the applicant’s applications for asylum and refugee status are still pending before the domestic authorities and the UNHCR respectively.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.
6.  At 8.04 a.m. on 31 August 2010 the applicant was apprehended at his home and a house search was conducted on the premises until 11.12 a.m.
During this time, the applicant told the officers that he intended to attend a funeral later that day. He submits that his request was “unofficially” dismissed at once. The Government denied this allegation.
7.  On completion of the house search, the applicant was committed to the offices of the Central Investigating Prosecutor’s Office, about seven kilometres away from the cemetery in question.
8.  From 1.35 p.m. onwards the applicant was interrogated as a suspect of attempted misappropriation of funds. At the beginning of the procedure, he formally requested that the authorities allow his attendance at his stepmother’s funeral which took place on the same day, at 2.15 p.m. The request was rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest. The interrogation ended at 2.29 p.m. on the same day.
9.  The applicant then complained to the Attorney General. That office rejected the complaint on 10 September 2010, pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrestees – as opposed to those in pre-trial detention – to attend funerals, for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful.